Comments

Someday they may be able to water their yards again and have green back in neighborhoods. Of course the downside is mudslides. It seems like every year a few more houses slide off of muddy slopes because they are not anchored properly when built. Have they never heard of spread footing? They could learn from Washington and Oregon where the Columbia river area is floating on a loose bed of glacial till from the last ice age recession deposited every time Glacial Lake Missoula would drain down the Columbia from the Clark Fork River.

I, for one, am quite alarmed by the overwhelming hordes of special snowflakes who do not hesitate to post demonstrably false data on the net in order to facilitate their own agenda. It is as if they were not taught the difference between right and wrong coupled with no responsibility for engaging in wrong behavior. It is like the government got highly involved in child raising rules and ideology. *Gets off soapbox and bangs head on wall.*

As for government thinking it could raise our kids better than we can, that was Hillary Clinton and 'no child left behind' and her 'it takes a village' when all it takes is dedicated parents. Then there's Michelle Obama deciding what kids will eat for lunch. Why do all the first ladies feel a need to get involved in politics, we never elected any of them to the office for a reason.

The climate will change on the Earth, with us or without us, it will change. Change is what makes it alive and vibrant and evolving.

The NoChildLeftBehindAct
of 2001 (NCLB) is a United States Act of Congress that is a
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which
included Title I, the government's flagship aid program for
disadvantaged students.

You missed the part about, "...and her 'it takes a vilage' " that was what was attributed to Hillary. (That is the title of a book she wrote in 1996)No child left behind was signed into law by GW Bush in '02.Some of it's greatest advocates now admit it isn't working. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124209100

I'm generally not a fan of grand federal schemes. What works in one place may not transfer well to another.

That said, I once got involved in an effort to preserve local school boards. School choice was being tried with some success, and I thought local boards would adapt by finding ares they could excel at and absorb best practises from other areas to attract and retain students and funding, thereby making the system work better for everyone. I was wrong. The effort succeeded in keeping the local board, but the funding model got so convoluted that boards really weren't held accountable.

Absolutely right. Theory and practice are not only unrelated at times they are nearly exact opposites.

The thing that gets me (well one of many) is how a school thinks of kids as a road to a paycheck from the Fed. They are concerned that kids have to attend a minimum number of days so they get the funding and don't really care if the kid is doing well and making up any missed work due to medical absences. They also feel an overwhelming need to use up all of this years budget regardless of the impact those purchases have on the education of the enrolled students because if there is money left over, that amount is deducted from the following years budget. It leads to stupid spending sprees on un needed items and maintenance like painting a school in which the paint is already in good condition, removing trees and then later putting in new trees, etc. I have seen both at the schools our kids attend.